• curves and loops are the name of the game, if you have a clearly defined angle it is not cursive enough
• all letters of a word are supposed to be joined, tipically the joiner stroke starts at the reightnost baseline point of the preceding letter and extends to the upper-left part of the following letter, with the exception of б which extends its joiner from the upper-right, this is why many cursive form of the letters have a hook on their bottom-right even though their print form has nothing of sorts
• when learning cursive schoolchildren are instructed to rotate their notebooks counter-clockwise 15-30 degrees to make the letters slanted in this shape /. There is some creep to this rotation throughout life so that some people eventually begin rotating the paper they are writing on almost 90 degrees and essentially write from bottom to top

In reality though, you ony need to remember two things:

• There is no single correct way to write in curseive. Sure the school teaches you that there is, but in reality everone develops their own style of cursive adding some modifications over time. As long as it is legible it is correct.
• You don't really need to be able to write cursive. 99.9% of all written speech is done through typing on a keyboard. The last remaining 0.1% is stuff like sticky notes where nobody cares. The only reason cursive is still enforced through schools is cultural inertia. It is a near-useless skill which at most is a vapid flex or a versy specific area of dick-measuring among the RSL students. You are welcome to learn it if it brings you joy, but its usefulness is marginal.

Still delisted btw

Does r*ssia have people who don't think that their language is supremely unique and special unlike all the other languages which are all dull and boring?

Oh well. Still on the fence whether I would rather complete it like that. I am rather deep in the Mid-Zone already.

It wasn't about the loot, but about having to go through this almost completed rather tedious and drawn-out storry mission where you are ordered about from stabilizer to stabilizer in a location you already visited before.

Well it was kinda ambigous to me precisely because it did not specify if it is reversible or irreversible

*EVERY disposable vape device is basically just a tampon soaked in nicotine juice that gets zapped by a small battery to produce vapor

901 Games has regular games DMed by Luigi (Barrabus Gray in the group)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1405929322768050
They used to be on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of the month but starting December there is supposed to be a new schedule, I assume the update should be posted shortly.

＞Is it also a universal truth that all or most gender/noun class systems are arbitrary? Well, the point is, they are not. I mean they are in the sense that language in general is arbitrary (bar the tentative low-level bouba/kiki stuff), but afaik initial allocation of nouns to classes is supposed to have had some meaning in the minds of the anicent speakers. Like speakers of PIE actually thought that there was something uniting all nouns of animate class - namely, they had some kind of "soul" in their value system. Linguist Lev Uspenskiy points out that this can even be traced in such German words as das Weib and das Kind which are neuter becuase thats how ancient people rolled. However, the semantic role of noun class allocation has eroded over time in IE languages, those examples like the aformentioned das Kind are nothing but relics, anachromisms. Admittedly, I dont have any extensive knowledge here, but it would seem that Bantu languages actually keep their classes due to classes' diversity which helped them to retain their semantic role - like you can actually deduce something about the thing the word stands for just from knowing what class it belongs to. Aformentioned Chinese classifiers though, which show some traits of noun class system, have also eroded into ridiculousness and are being displaced by the universal classifier 个 due to the loss of semantic meaning e.g. tiger or panda being 只 but dog and worm somehow being 条. So basically nouns classes per se are not something wrong (languages (generally) do not care what we think about them after all), and we value how they show us the diversity of human languages, but noun class systems that stick around long enough to lose any meaning will eventually vanish and from practical point of view there is no reason to cling to them - only nostalgia and scientific interest.

if they weren't they wouldn't persist IE genders dont seem to be particularly persistent. I dont have hard data with statistics and stuff but personal observation supported by a certain well-published linguist I asked shows that gender systems are actively withering away from the family. Significant portion of this languages experenced merging of the three original genders into two and some lost this category althogether. They introduce added redundancy freer word order they allow speakers to use multiple third person pronouns at once Thats true but it would require some high-throughput... semiomic analysis to see if it is worth the additional computational load it imposes on our brains. What annoys me the most though is that this noun class system has lost its basis in real world. Arbitrary systems are transient and their demise should only be welcomed. Variable stress is only a path from one stress placing rule to another. Chinese classifiers as their usage becomes increasingly nonsensical and obscure, give way to general 个. Guess terms of venery are next on the list.

Technically any language has limited number of concepts that can be expressed in it since no word can have infinite number of phonemes. Also though this is a bit more complicated, at some point the concept of a word becomes really blurry and can even boil down to wheter you spell it with a space or not (and spaces are not univesally used in writing). Even if you take into account polysynthetic languages (where the conept of a word seems to begin breaking down) you dont expect to routinely encounter words of more than 100 or even 50 phonemes. Sure you might place actual hard limit but then how do you differentiate between two words and one composite word? This system seems to be possible but easily dissolving due to verious factors such as tri-consonant system in Proto-Semitic or emergent monosylabic nature of Wenyan which then was replaced by generally bisyllabic modern Chinese languages.

Speaker of a gendered language (Russian) passing by. Trust me, grammatical gender adds absolutely nothing but useless complexity and fuel for occasional shitstorms (in Russian-speaking academia there is this ridiculously petty but religiously fervent squabble as to whether "allele" is masculine or feminine with neither side winning which might even result in some student's thesis being criticized if not outright returned for editing). IE gender is a defunct vestige of the long-nonsemantical system of animate vs inanimate noun classes and where it still lingers its abolition is long overdue. German example seems to be especially egregious since you cant even judge word's gender from its structure, you must literally memorize all of them. It might sound cool and exotic but it is this touristy type of cool where it is described as vibrant by outsiders but actually is "meh" at best from the inside.

What about something kite-like? Once you know how to make them they are easy to assemble, they stay aflight and visible even better than a rectangle, they dont need a pole and they can be of any size. From there on you can create derivatives such as diamond-shaped badges and insignia (fits both diamond and box kites). Something actively catching wind like windsocks or koinobori works as well (no intricate details though, they are relatively one-dimensional regarding pattern, so you'd probably need access to a lot of natural pigments before chemistry takes off for real).These symbols dont need to fly at all, they can stem from something rigidly fixed such as triangular sails - from this you get triangle "flags" as the standard shape, held by various Y-shaped rigs (when they need to be used as literal banners and not say icons on a website).

So I've been wondering for a while... Seeing how these uniform reactangular sheets of fabric have been adopted as the way for nations to represent themselves relatively recently (like a couple of centuries) - what are the alternative options some parallel human civlization that have developed the conept of a state might adopt? There were banners of various shapes hoisted on various carrying devices, crests, badges and whatnot. Choosing this modern flag thing above all else seems - at least in part - an arbitrary choice, a consequence of some historical circumstances. Have it not been such and such we would have yadda yadda. So if this parallel civilization starts collectively looking for a form-factor for its nations to represent themselves it seems not predetermined at all that it will arrive at the same flag stuff we have ended up with. However, it should arguably fit some universal criteria - relatively simple production, scalability, recognizability are the ones I can come up with. I'd also consider adding... replicability in different media (so that you can represent it without creating the actual thing, say a child can doodle up a flag with pencils, regal standard carved from a wooden log - not so much). Have you thought about it? Did you come up with something different?

Okay I checked with US2. Star: M=1.8 (Sun) R=1.66 Tsurface=8300 Luminosity wanders a bit from try to try (Steam didnt take screenshot correctly first time so I had to do over). Last time it was around 11.5, now it is 13, but it corresponds to the table here http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/startype.html All in all an A5V-ish star. Earth placed at 3AU stabilizes at 41.5C (last attempt with L=11.5 it was a bit above 30C) - of which 36.6C due to atmosphere. Checked with PlanetTemp again - M=1.8 Dist=3AU, Albedo=29, Greenhouse Effect=1. -15C. Well I did notice that "standard" parameters of star classes do differ from source to source - from lifetime, to mass, to luminosity, but I wonder if any are to be trusted at all and if yes - with what expectations of accuracy? https://imgur.com/a/Fog0u 

Is it just me of the first tool kinda underestimates star's luminosity? I used star mass 1.8 which corresponds to mid-A class but even at 3 AU an earth-like planet was frozen while as far as I understand it should be hot if not soaring hot. Sure A's emit a lot of UV but even if we imagine its output follows the pattern of our sun it should still emit quite a lot.